1 Greg Edit Problem Definition

Before the workshop

Ensure the investor is attending the workshop and assist them to identify the other participants.

Have the investor send an email outlining the purpose of the discussion to the participants. The ‘sample email – before the Problem Definition workshop may help (Appendix 8.).

Make sure the venue has been reserved 30 minutes prior to the workshop beginning, it can accommodate the number of participants comfortably and has at least one suitably sized whiteboard – preferably one that can produce screen copies. Access to a flip chart is also helpful. It is wise to take some working whiteboard markers with you as well.

At the workshop

Introduction

For a new facilitator here are a few general tips you might find useful to consider and incorporate into your facilitation and workshop management techniques:

Setting some expectations

You expect people to be at the workshop for the full two hours.

Phones should be turned off (unless someone is expecting a critical phone call).

It’s not necessary for the workshop participants to bring along any material related to the investment. They are the experts on this subject and it is their knowledge and experience in their field that is needed to inform the discussion. However, as the facilitator you may wish to bring along an example ILM and/or some of the other IMS material to give any participants new to the process.

Polite behaviour within the group is expected but this should not compromise the robust and probing nature of the discussion.

The workshop is the initial part of the consultation. The feedback process and timing is an equally important part of their participation and engagement in the Problem Definition workshop.

Ensure you let participants know it is unlikely there will be sufficient time during the workshop to get the wording of the problem statements exactly right. Therefore the focus will be on getting clear agreement to the intent of the wording during the workshop and undertake wordsmithing in the final copy.

Structuring the workshop

The structure and time allocation within the Problem Definition workshop will depend on the size and complexity of the investment being discussed and the number of workshops allocated. For a small or low-complexity investment the aim would be to move from defining the problem all the way through to the business changes that make up the solution. For an investment of medium size or complexity the aim would be to develop the problems, benefits and KPIs and, if time permits, a rough start on brainstorming some strategic interventions. For a very large or complex project you would likely only reach the stage of defining the problem and the outline of the benefits within the first workshop. For more information about how many workshops refer to section 2.2.

It is recommended you roughly map out how you aim to structure the workshop in terms of the time allocated to each section. Though this structure may well change according to how the discussion progresses or the discovery that the investment is more, or less, complex than previously anticipated. An example of different time allocations for the steps within the Problem Definition workshop is attached at Appendix 7..

General timing tips

Foremost, remember to maintain a time-pressure awareness throughout the discussion… there is no 121st minute!

Allow for ‘venting’ of ideas in the first period (10–15 minutes).

Focus on establishing very strong problem statements (no more than four). Extracting these statements is likely to take up a significant proportion of the workshop. It is time well spent though, as their identification is most critical element of a successful investment.

Benefits need to be expressed in the context of why the organisation exists and must be able to be supported by good KPIs (meaningful, attributable, measurable). If these are weak you are likely tof find the ILM falls apart at the Benefit Definition workshop.

In the last 10–15 minutes gather a list of potential strategic interventions (some of these will be included in the Strategic response column).

For major investments, don’t be concerned about selecting interventions or defining the solution. These will be given serious consideration at subsequent workshops.

• 
  Please refer to the sample workshop agenda (Appendix 7.).
  
• 
  You are encouraged to use the ‘Quality assessment form – Investment Logic Map’ (Appendix 6.) to assist in focusing on the right things during the discussion.
  

Step 1: Setting the scene

The following is provided as a possible introduction the facilitator might use to set the scene for the discussion. It attempts to establish a climate of robust and open discussion within a two-hour time period.

Starting the problem definition discussion

In this workshop the challenge for the facilitator is to move the discussion from the solution, where people typically want to start, to the negative impacts or effects that have formed the impetus to make a change.

It is useful to start by asking the investor to identify the overarching business outcome they want from this investment. This becomes the initial title for the investment and provides some scope and context for the discussion. This exercise should not take more than one minute. Once the workshop is concluded the participants will have a chance to review the title to ensure it reflects the investment story they have told. At this point a subheading can also be included for simpler projects. This may reflect the desired solution whether this is a project, asset or service.

For example:

Heading: Improving access to ambulance services in rural areas

Subheading: Upgrade to the ambulance fleet

Ask the investor to outline the problem that has caused them to consider an investment. Once the investor has finished (three or four minutes), open this up to the rest of the group. Let them ‘vent’ for as long as the group needs, typically five to 10 minutes. This provides an opportunity to establish whether all participants have a shared understanding of context of the problem. Then gather the key issues.

Note: It is common practice during the process of developing an ILM to test the initial desired solution thoroughly and a new, better solution will often become apparent. This will be reflected in the subheading as the ILM develops.